Tag: Speeches

Kevin Hollinrake – 2023 Speech on Unpaid Work Trials

The speech made by Kevin Hollinrake, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on introducing this important debate, and on his persistence. I think it is his seventh year of talking about this issue. He rightly feels strongly about it. He, like me, the rest of Government and probably every parliamentarian, absolutely believes that people who are at work should get paid the national living wage. I am delighted to be the Minister responsible for national living wage policy and workers’ rights.

Broadly, I agree with the points the hon. Member made. As others have said, if employers are engaging in the behaviour to which he referred—I accept that there is some evidence that some are—that is a scandalous practice. It is absolutely our case that all workers should be fairly rewarded for their work. Most people think that. Who would not agree with the point that a fair day’s work should mean a fair day’s pay? We are all on the same page on that.

We are also all on the same page on a related and very important point. As Minister responsible for national living wage policy, I am pleased to see the largest ever increase to the national living wage: a 9.7% increase to £10.42. That applies from Saturday. It is great to see it go over that £10 mark. Some 2.9 million people across the country will benefit from that measure, including 210,000 in Scotland and 160,000 in Northern Ireland. It is a very welcome move.

We should pay tribute to the vast majority of businesses and employers who—I think we all agree—are decent, do the right thing and do not engage in these scandalous practices. It is really important that we reiterate that, as well as the fact that lots of businesses are already struggling in the cost of living crisis, not least because of high energy bills, for example. They are suffering because of numerous cost pressures, and their paying this increase in the national living wage will not only affect the people on the bottom rung of the pay ladder, but have a knock-on effect on others in their workforce. We are determined to build the high-skill, high-wage economy that most people would like to see.

We have further ambitions. We want the national living wage to reach two thirds of median pay by 2024. That remains our ambition. It is the right thing to do. We are putting in place other measures that reinforce our point that we are absolutely protecting and indeed strengthening workers’ rights. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) made an interesting point about finding parliamentary time; we are effectively finding parliamentary time for a number of pieces of legislation, including six private Members’ Bills for which I am personally responsible. Those Bills include measures to ensure workers get full allocation of tips and service charges; to protect neonatal care for new parents who have difficulties with a newborn, ensuring more leave—up to 12 weeks; to entitle everybody to at least a week’s carers’ leave, which could help many people in the workplace look after dependent relatives; and to ensure redundancy protections pre and post maternity, which, again, is a welcome change.

A further change, and a key measure in the Taylor review, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is the right to request predictable terms and conditions. It will give people on, for example, zero-hours contracts the right to request predictable hours. We support legislation on that, and on making flexible working something that people have the right to request on day one. Those are all things that we are doing to strengthen workers’ rights and make the workplace more attractive.

Chris Stephens

I have been listening to the Minister very carefully, and I welcome what he says about the right to request, but a right to request does not necessarily mean that the right will be given. Will the Minister talk about how he intends to enforce that legislation, and increase enforcement around unpaid work trials?

Kevin Hollinrake

I do not want to get too distracted from the issue at hand, but I am happy to address that point in detail afterwards. We think those measures strike a balance. The recommendation from Matthew Taylor was not that there be a right to insist; it was the right to request. The employer could reject that request only on one of eight grounds, and in doing so, has to adhere to a process. We think that strikes a balance and meets the needs of businesses. For example, businesses can refuse a request in order to ensure that they have the right customer service availability and are not put under an undue burden. Those criteria have been set out, and I am happy to have that discussion with the hon. Member after the debate.

On the issue that the hon. Member for Glasgow South raised, there are two things that the Government would question about his policy: is it necessary, and what is the extent of the problem? It is important that we reflect the actual extent of the problem. He said that there is £3 billion of unpaid work; clearly that is a different issue. Following my intervention, he clarified that unpaid work trials are an element of that. The figure of 29% is also about unpaid work; the hon. Member for Glasgow South West said that among the 29% of employers that use unpaid work, work trials were a factor. The extent of the problem is not clear. I would describe people who are abusing the system as rogue employers, rather than something to benchmark.

Anybody who is defined as a worker should receive the national living wage. We updated the guidance in 2018, probably prompted by the work of the hon. Member for Glasgow South. The guidance is clear on the time that someone is allowed to have a work trial for. It says:

“in the Government’s view an individual conducting work in a trial lasting longer than one day is likely to be entitled to the minimum wage in all but very exceptional circumstances”.

Employment tribunals, for example, have a basis on which to make a judgment, and there are other bases.

Stewart Malcolm McDonald

I am unclear. Do the Government and the Minister’s Department collect data on the use of unpaid work trials?

Kevin Hollinrake

I do not have access to that data. The hon. Member refers to a survey that was done some years ago. It is our belief that unpaid work trials are not widespread, and there are measures to deal with the problem, which I will set out shortly. As the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, there are six criteria applied to unpaid work trials.

Jim Shannon

Some of the responses have been very positive. The Carer’s Leave Bill, which I have been following, is really welcome. The Minister mentioned the outcome of tribunals, but a person cannot take a case to a tribunal if they have not been in the workplace long enough, which means that a tribunal may not be an option. Can the Minister also give some direction on the uniform issue?

Kevin Hollinrake

I thank the hon. Gentleman for all the good work he does in this House. In all the debates he speaks in, he is a champion for doing the right thing. As he said, we have been on the same side of the fence in debates on many occasions, and I am sure that will continue despite my ministerial position. I will come back to both of those points shortly.

Six different criteria apply in deciding whether an unpaid work trial is appropriate. The first is the length of time. The trial should be no longer than a day. Observation is another: is the employer observing, or is somebody just working unobserved? Other criteria relate to the nature of the work, and the value to the employer—is there a value to that work? That would be inappropriate. If the worker is observed, the work would have less value, because somebody has to observe them, and they might as well be doing the work themselves. All those things are taken into account in judging whether that shift should be paid.

There are reasons for having an unpaid work trial; for example, a teacher might be required to do a model lesson. It might be appropriate to ask teachers who are being interviewed to show what they would do in the actual situation. It would not be right to ban the practice altogether.

On having more specific guidance, which the hon. Member for Glasgow South mentioned, the problem is that being too specific in guidance could result in a race to the bottom by some employers—something that he is looking to clamp down on. If we said, “This categorically is the perimeter of work trials,” rogue employers may well take advantage. There needs to be a balance of judgment, rather than exact criteria.

The Government think that work trials can be a legitimate recruitment exercise at times, which is why we are not legislating in this area and do not intend to. I know the hon. Member disagrees, and I respect his opinion, but we do not think it is right to legislate further in this area. What we already have strikes the right balance.

Chris Stephens

On the one hand, the Minister says that the Government do not collect data, and on the other, he says that legislation is not necessary. That seems a bit confusing to those of us in the House who study these matters. Before the Government decide whether to legislate, would it not be better to do some investigation into the root of the problem to see how widespread it is?

Kevin Hollinrake

Of course, we will always look at information and evidence. As parliamentarians, we get information and evidence from lots of different sources, but we tend to work by seeing where there is obvious detriment and therefore loopholes that we need to close. I do not think it is practical for the Government to look at every single problem and then decide where to legislate; it is usually the other way round. I think we disagree on that, but we will always look at information. If the survey was updated and specified unpaid work trials as an issue, the hon. Gentleman would have a more compelling case.

On uniforms required for a place of work, deduction of the cost of the uniform should not take a person’s earnings below minimum wage. If it did, the employer would be guilty of an offence under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. It can be appropriate for an employer to say that there is a uniform that an employee must wear, at the employee’s cost, but that must not take that employee below the minimum wage.

Jim Shannon

The example I gave was a true one—I bring all my examples with honesty. The person had to buy a black shirt and black trousers to have the trial. If they did not get the job, they were out of pocket. Where is the comeback? It might be better for the employer, who will probably have spares, to make them available.

Kevin Hollinrake

I agree with the hon. Member, but that is a different point; I am speaking more to uniforms and how they relate to the minimum wage. It would be entirely inappropriate for an employer to say, “I want you to come on an unpaid work trial, and I want you to buy a new shirt and a new pair of trousers to do that.” I would define them as a rogue employer for taking that approach. As I have said, I was an employer for 30 years, and we would never have even considered that kind of behaviour.

The hon. Member for Strangford talked about awareness. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs undertakes a programme on best practice for employers. It is an enforcement body, as well as one that tries to help employers meet the relevant employment conditions.

A number of contributors said that an employment tribunal is the only way to deal with the issue. I quite understand that employment tribunals can be expensive and time-consuming. There are other processes; if people feel that they have been wrongly and inappropriately asked to do an unpaid work trial, they can report that to ACAS or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, through its online form. All reports are investigated.

We are keen to expand the reach of HMRC’s enforcement capability. We have doubled our investment in national minimum wage enforcement since 2015-16. We spend nearly £28 million every year on ensuring that employers meet their legal responsibilities. Employers who are found to underpay their staff must repay all arrears that they owe to their staff and a penalty of up to 200% of the underpayment, and may be eligible to be publicly named by the Department for Business and Trade.

In 2021, HMRC returned more than £6.7 million in arrears to over 155,000 workers, and issued fines totalling more than £14 million to businesses that had failed to pay the minimum wage. Since 2015, the Government have ordered employers to repay over £100 million to more than 1 million workers, which demonstrates that it is never acceptable to short-change hard-working employees. The shadow Minister rightly asked when we will do the next naming and shaming. It has been too long. The last one was in December 2021. I have absolutely met my officials and said, “We need that list out very shortly.” It will happen very shortly.

I conclude by again thanking the hon. Member for Glasgow South. We absolutely agree that it is vital that the right of workers to be paid the minimum wage continues to be upheld. That is why the Government listened to concerns relating to work trials, and issued new guidance in 2018—prompted by his work, I would say, though I was not in this role at the time. That revised guidance, combined with strong enforcement of existing legislation, will continue to ensure that workers are not exploited through unpaid work trials.

Stewart Malcolm McDonald

We have had a good debate, with all the obsequiousness that is customary in the House. I thank the Minister, who I know to be diligent, but I briefly have to pick up on a couple of things that he said. He cannot have it both ways: he tells the House that he does not have data on the issue, but also that the problem is not widespread. I promise you, Mr Hollobone, that the problem is widespread and very real. The Minister cited the amount of money that HMRC has forced businesses to repay to workers. That is not the sign of a system that is successful. It is the sign of an unsuccessful system when the Government have to go around forcing people to pay money that they should have paid. It is welcome that the Government have done the enforcement, but this should never have been allowed to happen in the first place.

I accept entirely that the Minister does not see the need for legislation, but I think that he is wrong; legislation would be entirely proportionate and is necessary. He tells me to be specific; the title of the Bill was the Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill. I cannot think of a more specific title for a Bill trying to solve a very specific problem, via an amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. The Minister mentions various Bills that he is seeking to bring in. I think he will agree that his job is one of the best in Government, because he can make a material difference. He is choosing not to, and that needs to change.

05/04/2023
Justin Madders – 2023 Speech on Unpaid Work Trials

The speech made by Justin Madders, the Labour MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for securing the debate and for the work he has done over six years to try to deal with this wholly egregious situation.

We can probably start on a note of common concern, because every right-minded person would regard it as wrong that workers should be expected to work for free. In many cases, as we have heard, they actually end up out of pocket after working a trial shift. I firmly believe that we should all adhere to the principle that there should be a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, and any action to stop exploitation—whatever form it takes—should be welcome.

As we have heard, there clearly ought to be means by which an employer can test an individual’s suitability for a position, but—call me old-fashioned—I have always thought that that was what a job interview was for. If not that, what about a paid probationary period for someone to be assessed for their suitability? Let us not forget that people have to work somewhere continuously for two years before they get any protection against unfair dismissal, which could be seen as a very long trial period, albeit one that is paid. When we consider the many options available to employers to assess the suitability of potential employees in the round, we inevitably get drawn to the conclusion that, in the main, trial shifts are not necessary—certainly not unpaid ones. When we are confronted with the evidence that we have heard today and on previous occasions, the suspicion continues to grow that they are often used as a quick way to get free labour.

We have to ask what is being done to stop jobseekers being exploited. Although it is welcome that the Government have published guidance on the practice of unpaid trial shifts, it is not worth the paper it is written on without proper enforcement. There is a problem with both the wording of the guidance and the Government’s general attitude to upholding UK employment law. In particular, I have concerns about the fact that, as the guidance notes, there are no definitive rules or tests for whether a trial shift is legal.

As we know, there are six factors in the guidance that a court or tribunal will consider when making a judgment about whether a trial shift should be paid. I ask the Minister to consider how many people have the legal knowledge, patience, time or money to pursue an employer for a handful of hours of lost earnings at the tribunal, particularly if they are in a legally vulnerable position from having no employment protection at that point. Does the Minister agree that the threat of being taken to a tribunal for an unpaid trial shift is self-evidently a hollow threat to employers, and that the Department should be much more proactive in pursuing complaints on behalf of workers? Does he agree that, given that the majority of people in these sectors are young people, because of the nature of the work, and are unlikely to be members of a trade union, they need support in enforcing their rights?

Let me give an example from my own family of what is probably a pretty typical situation. My son has plenty of experience working in bars—quite often in Glasgow, actually. He has applied for various jobs in bars, including one at a bar in Chester. He had an interview. He has all the experience needed to work there, but was offered a trial shift despite the fact that he clearly could do the job. It transpired that the trial shift would run for eight hours and finish in the early hours of the morning, when there is no public transport, so he would have to pay for a taxi out of his own pocket to get home. That looked to me like blatant exploitation. Luckily for him, his father was the shadow employment rights Minister so he could be guided on what to do in that situation, but it begs the question: how many other times have they gotten away with that? How many hours each week are young people being asked to work trial shifts for which they get no payment? The Minister should be tasking his officials with trying to find out exactly how many times this happens each week, because we are probably seeing only the tip of the iceberg.

Kevin Hollinrake

What guidance did the hon. Member give his son in that situation? I would be interested to know.

Justin Madders

I am not sure Hansard can record in a polite way the suggestion that I conveyed to him. Let me put it this way: the employment relationship did not continue.

The six factors contained in the guidance are useful, but a lot of subjectivity is applied to them. For example, how is observation—which is one of the criteria—defined? How long is a reasonable period of observation? Ultimately, how can a jobseeker be expected to know if their employer has acted in line with the guidance, given how ambiguous it is? The ACAS website does not make any reference to trial shifts at all. People need a lot more support to understand when they are being asked to do something that is unlawful.

Ambiguities aside, the guidance needs to be properly enforced. As has been mentioned, we have this figure of £3 billion for unpaid work in various forms—it is probably is an even greater figure now. The continued reliance on an underfunded and overstretched tribunal system is failing our workers. Surely it is time for a single enforcement body to follow through for workers to ensure that their rights are enforced. I know the Government promised that along with an employment Bill, which we unsurprisingly have touched on. Will the Minister give us a timescale for when this single enforcement body will emerge?

The Government’s record on national minimum wage enforcement in recent times has been concerning. A naming and shaming list has not been published since December 2021, and I know the Minister has expressed his support for that as an important pillar of enforcement. As I have mentioned to him on previous occasions, a number of Departments have awarded lucrative contracts running into the hundreds of millions of pounds to companies that have appeared on the list of shame. What kind of message does it send to companies about the importance that the Government place on enforcement of the national minimum wage if they are then rewarded with Government contracts? I hope the Minister can give us an update on when the next list will be released.

In conclusion, the debate is a useful reminder that this is unfinished business. We can see very clearly how current ambiguities are being used to exploit workers. I want to hear from the Minister about what more can be done to ensure that people get paid for the work they do, and to ensure that these ruses, in all their forms, are put to an end, so that we get to a point in this country where a fair day’s work means a fair day’s pay.

05/04/2023
Chris Stephens – 2023 Speech on Unpaid Work Trials

The speech made by Chris Stephens, the SNP MP for Glasgow South West, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone, and to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I hope he enjoyed his birthday celebrations at the weekend; I noticed that he was a social media sensation, with all the well-wishers wishing him a happy birthday.

I congratulate my good friend and constituency neighbour, and fellow left winger—I use the definition loosely—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing this debate on an important issue that affects far too many people in these islands. My good friend talked about one of the more extreme examples, the tea company Mooboo, but he undersold what was going on at that particular workplace. That situation really did go from the bizarre to the ridiculous. I recall that when this story hit the headlines, myself and my good friend were actually sitting next to each other in the Chamber of the House of Commons on a Thursday morning at business questions—the Minister was usually at business questions in those days—as we discussed this great matter.

Those of us who were contacting Mooboo tea on the social media platform Twitter were finding ourselves blocked for asking why unpaid work trials were happening in that workplace. Members of the pubic who were asking Mooboo, “Why are you blocking Members of Parliament for asking basic questions?”, were finding themselves blocked. It was getting to the stage where Mooboo was blocking more people than it had followers. It was one of those ridiculous situations. Even journalists were asking Mooboo those questions and finding themselves blocked, until Mooboo relented and started to engage with Unite—Bryan Simpson, who is a fantastic trade unionist and a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South, and who does great work in organising trade unions in such areas, where exploitation takes place.

I want to make it very clear that the SNP is still calling on the UK Government to ban exploitative unpaid work trials and to protect workers, but we should not have to wait for the Government to act. As I alluded to in my intervention, we have waited six years for this employment Bill to appear before us. In 2017, the Government said they would bring forward an employment Bill to ban exploitative practices that were happening in the workplace, and then we were told, “Well, Brexit’s taken over.” Recently we have been told, “We’ll bring forward an employment Bill if there’s sufficient parliamentary time,” but that does not stop them introducing immigration Bill after immigration Bill. They can find parliamentary time for that, rather than for the very real issue of the exploitative practices that are happening in far too many workplaces across these islands. Will the Minister update the House on when we will finally see an employment Bill tabled by the Government to address unpaid work trials and all the other issues that come with it, which I will come to?

As my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South, said, he introduced an Unpaid Trial Work Periods (Prohibition) Bill in July 2017. Guess what, Mr Hollobone—I know you will be shocked when I say this—it was talked out by a Minister. How many private Members’ Bills have been talked out by a Minister? I hope that we will review how private Members’ Bills are put forward in this place and that we stop the practice whereby Ministers are allowed to keep talking until 2.30 pm on the button, when the Bills disappear. That is really disappointing, and that view is shared by others across the House.

My hon. Friend has led in a number of debates and been a consistent campaigner on unpaid work trials. I hope that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), and indeed the Minister, will praise him for his work in shining a light on these issues.

In response to a written parliamentary question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South about legislative proposals, the UK Government said:

“Existing legislation already bans unpaid work trials that are not part of a legitimate recruitment process”,

yet he has given example after example, as did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), of unpaid work trials happening all over the economy and not being part of a recruitment process. As my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour said, they are being used to deal with staff shortages or fill in for people who have been off sick, which is a scandalous practice. Then there are those who are having to buy uniforms to go to unpaid work trials, which is an absolutely ridiculous practice—I hope the Minister noted what my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Strangford also said about that. The Minister will need to answer for how we can deal with that kind of exploitation, because that is what it is.

As my hon. Friend said, trial periods can be a legitimate way to assess a candidate’s skills and suitability. They also give individuals the opportunity to assess whether a workplace suits them, which can be just as important. I note that the Department for Work and Pensions is trying to force people to take up more hours, and there are issues in relation to that. However, if an employer offers someone a trial period, it should be paid. There should also be feedback. Many examples have been given of unpaid work trials where nobody hears anything afterwards—whether it is a day, a couple of days or even a couple of hours, they do not hear anything from the employers. That practice needs to end. Perhaps an employment Bill could deal with some of that.

It is interesting that the UK Government have confirmed that unpaid working time, which can include unpaid trial shifts, was a factor in 29% of cases when 208 employers were named for failing to pay £1.2 million to around 12,000 workers, and ordered to pay £2 million in penalties. If there is adequate legislation in place, and the practice is still happening to the degree outlined by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Strangford, perhaps there is an enforcement issue.

Perhaps the Minister can tell us what enforcement is taking place within Government to ensure that unpaid work trials are not exploitative. Perhaps he could start by telling us how many vacancies currently exist in the national minimum wage compliance unit. If we had more workers employed by the state to enforce the national minimum wage, as the Government said in their parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend—if we had more enforcement officers—perhaps we would find out that the practice is as the two hon. Members suggested: still widespread, and still happening in too many workplaces.

The UK Government could have supported my constituency neighbour’s private Member’s Bill, or they could have brought in their own legislation. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what legislation is proposed and what timetable will be allowed for an employment Bill. We might not agree with every single provision in that employment Bill, but it would give every single Member of the House an opportunity to raise other issues, put forward amendments and deal with this issue.

Stewart Malcolm McDonald

My hon. Friend speaks to an important issue that he touched upon earlier, which is the practice of talking Bills out. I got an assurance from the then Minister that the Bill would not be talked out, and that it would be given a fair hearing and allowed to go through the process, but he then rather dishonourably did the opposite of what he had told me. We ended up with the Bill not having a fair hearing in the House, and not being given the proper readings that it ought to have been given as a Bill from a Member of Parliament. The result is that we are back here six years later, discussing the same problem.

Chris Stephens

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As I recall, it might very well have been in the debate on his private Member’s Bill when the then Minister rose to his feet and said, “I will be concluding my remarks at 2.30 pm.” That was at the beginning of his remarks. That is a completely scandalous way of dealing with it, but my hon. Friend is right. We have had assurances before that Bills would not be talked about and then, lo and behold, on the day that the Bill is up for discussion, that is exactly what happens.

We firmly oppose this practice. Because of the sectors of the economy that my hon. Friend referred to, we also oppose the inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts. Sometimes they go together, where there is an unpaid work trial for a zero-hours contract job. They are both exploitative practices. These non-standard types of employment that offer workers minimal job or financial security really have to end, particularly in a cost of living crisis. If the Government are really serious about helping people to earn more money, they need to put forward legislation to stop unpaid work trials and exploitative zero-hour contracts.

Jim Shannon

When that Bill was introduced approximately six years ago, we anticipated that it would go through Westminster and address this anomaly. Does the hon. Gentleman, like me, feel aggrieved—I am sure he does—that, in the six years since this legislative change, people have been exploited and thousands have lost out on what was rightly theirs?

Chris Stephens

I agree.

I will remind the House why the promise of an employment Bill came about: it was because of the Taylor review. It was the Government’s own task. Matthew Taylor reviewed the working practices taking place across these islands, and the Taylor review listed a whole series of recommendations, many of which have still not been dealt with through legislation. If the Government are going to ask people to carry out that sort of work, we would expect them to back it with action. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, it is quite extraordinary that they have refused to do that.

The Scottish Government and the other devolved Administrations can do their bit, but they can do only so much, because employment law is reserved to this place, unfortunately. I would suggest that if employment law was devolved, including to the Scottish Parliament, work practices across the board would be a lot fairer.

I am conscious of the time. Let me end by saying that if the Government viewed trade unions as a key social partner in this country, these sorts of practices would come to an end in the workplace. I wholly support what my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South, is trying to do in this area.

05/04/2023
Therese Coffey – 2023 Speech on the Plan for Water
The speech made by Therese Coffey, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, at London Wetland Centre on 4 April 2023.
Thank you, Rebecca. And it is great to be back here.

Sarah, thank you very much for letting us use this spectacular site. As Rebecca said we were here five years ago for the launch of the 25-Year Environment Plan. And as Rebecca pointed out, that partnership has been ongoing and I am delighted that it was Rebecca of course, who pushed the Environment Bill through Parliament that has led to many of the outcomes that we are seeking to make sure we can deploy today.

I am delighted to be launching our Plan for Water – our comprehensive and integrated plan to deliver clean and plentiful supply of water for people, businesses and for nature.

It’s built on a catchment-based approach to managing water including with nature-based solutions, and we will coordinate community by community on how to tackle pollution from every source, to have unlimited penalties on polluters, reinvesting those proceeds into local water restoration projects and to make sure we have sufficient supply for us at home, for businesses, for food security and for nature.

I have lived near rivers, near water, pretty much all of my life, from the Test to the Trent, from the Mersey to the Minsmere; and many others in between.

Every river, every stream has its own sense of magic, with its own special history, its own sense of life changing right throughout the day as that movement of water is critical for the very essence of life itself for us and for nature, and it has long been the lifeblood of our economy for centuries.

The Test, probably the most famous chalk stream in the world, filled with trout, the gravel bed glistening, wildlife and anglers in harmony – though the fish get a bit of a raw deal if the anglers are in luck.

Or the magnificent Mersey – once the extremely murky Mersey – which had its raw sewage pipes spewing out, but they were removed and the river was transformed thanks to the Mersey Basin campaign, a long term campaign. We now see it resplendent with its rich maritime history and the river still being a key economic lifeline for Liverpool

I could go on, especially as now MP for Suffolk Coastal, which is full of rivers and creeks, my constituency stretches from the Orwell river in the south right up to the Hundred, each with their own tales of yesteryear and being at the heart of the economy and nature today.

I have long been motivated by making sure that we do have clean and plentiful water, and access to that at home and abroad, critical to the health and wellbeing of everyone and every element of wildlife on this planet.

Before becoming an MP, I was a volunteer speaker for Water Aid driven by my desire very much for everyone in this planet to have access to safe, clean water.

That is why I am proud of our government’s work right around the world on delivering clean, safe, water for people and for food production, especially in this time of accelerated climate change where we are seeing desertification on a mass scale.

And we are seeing increasingly those problems at home too.

Last summer we hadreally significant drought, and parts of the country are still considered to be in drought, and we were reminded how precious and finite water really is.

One reason we tend to take water for granted when we turn on our taps is our Victorian water system. It has transformed our health, landscapes, our coastlines for the better, for generations, taking care of our needs in ways that millions of people around the world still lack.

Yet, the pressures have increased dramatically – both on the supply of water and our Victorian sewage network creaking with the increase in pollution.

Just like many other countries, we are now facing the challenges of securing clean and plentiful water for the long term.

We have growing demand on supply, when we already supply 14 billion litres per day, we have been told we need to plan for 4 billion litres per day more by 2050.

When climate change is bringing hotter summers, and wetter, stormier winters.

So, making sure we have a clean and plentiful supply of water is critical for people for business, for nature, and food security.

We do need to take care of water and our Plan is designed to do just that, building on the significant investment and action already undertaken.

Last year, I was pleased that over 72% of our bathing waters in England were classified as ‘excellent’, that’s up from 51% in 2010.

We have much loved species like seahorses, otters and seals returning to our rivers and estuaries.

We have taken on the micro and single-use plastics that wreak such havoc on our wildlife.

We introduced Farming Rules for Water to tackle pollution.

We designated marine conservation zones – our own Blue Belt – and are now designating highly protected marine areas.

However, we still have the scourge of sewage pollution that needs solving once and for all.

It was Richard Benyon, the Water Minister in 2013, who instructed water companies to monitor storm overflows.

Previous governments had not even thought to do this.

And as the lid has been lifted, their significant over-use has been gradually unveiled.

As we dialled up the monitoring, the public has been rightly horrified by how frequently they are now being used.

I agree it is completely unacceptable.

So, as well as leaning on water companies to scale up investment, we are tightening regulation and toughening up enforcement.

And that is why now is the right time for our new comprehensive Plan for Water

Working systematically at a local level across catchments

Tackling all sources of pollution and improving quality

Penalising polluters

Managing supply and demand for water, for our homes, for businesses and for food security

The scale, the detail and the deliverability of this Plan I think puts it in a different league to anything we have ever done before – and I believe that will make all the difference.

Collaboration and coordination, community by community, catchment by catchment, is critical to improving our water – both on pollution and supply – and we will support that with targeted funding.

Backed by government, strengthening our regulators, supporting our communities, I will make delivery of this plan as straightforward as I possibly can.

There will be nowhere to hide for those who continue to pollute our rivers, with support for those who want to do the right thing, with the system by default expected to say yes to help deliver those improvements.

We all agree pollution is simply not acceptable.

So, we will penalise polluters, making it easier for regulators to do that job, we will get farmers the kit and support they need to manage the slurry and reduce the run-off, and we will tackle every other source of pollution head on – including run-off from our roads, banning those wet wipes that have plastic in them. It’s great that some retailers have already got the message from previous signals and we are going to complete the job by delivering the regulation.

And I want to work with industry to have cheap, effective filters to stop microplastics leaving our washing machines – that’s a long running campaign by the Women’s Institute which I fully expect industry to deliver.

And we will also be banning chemicals that hang around in our rivers forever doing untold damage.

But, clearly, the penalties that have been deployed so far – even though we have now seen the largest, over £90 million, deployed recently – they have not been a sufficient deterrent for poor performance – so, I am going to make those penalties unlimited.

And with establishing a Water Restoration Fund reinvesting those penalties into local projects to help repair the damage, we will target efforts where they are needed most urgently, where we can achieve greatest impact – that’s on protected sites, chalk streams, peatlands, wetlands, we are going to tackle pollution, and support wildlife.

And, we will seek to use technology and innovation as allies in solving the quality and supply challenges that we face.

Now you may think I have spoken about pollution and sewage enough.

But we do need to keep talking about sewage and how to tackle it.

Our combined sewer network is about sixty-two-thousand-miles long – that’s enough stretch around the world two-and-a-half times, with over 15,000 storm overflows.

And while about 30% of pipes have been renewed since 1990, the scale and complexity of what we need to achieve is absolutely extraordinary.

We have already created the Storm Overflow Reduction Plan which will require the biggest ever investment in water infrastructure of an estimated £56 billion.

We announced this week the speeding up of spending from water companies on storm overflows and other schemes, with an additional £1.6 billion in the next two years, bringing forward projects, fixing problems with major new projects in Lake Windermere, the River Wharfe, Falmouth, Sidmouth, and Drake Reservoir in Warwickshire so we will see more improvement, faster.

I recently re-visited the Thames Tideway Tunnel scheme. Can you believe it was initiated a decade ago, that planning consent went in in February 2013, construction started in 2016, and it will still take till 2025 to complete at an estimated cost of over £4 billion.

But it is expected to reduce storm overflows by at least 94% a year – I would like it to be 100% – but it is just one part of the jigsaw needed.

And while London and the Thames may have space for its new super sewer, wider upgrades to the sewer network could mean years of costly disruptive works in our streets – and without careful management that could put hundreds of pounds on people’s bills.

Because the truth is that however much we all want to see this fixed yesterday, never mind today, there is no way that we can stop pollution overnight.

If there were, I would do it just as quickly – without hesitation.

And anyone who tells you that they can – or indeed get £56 billion of capital investment out the door and into the necessary improvements to fix everything within the next seven years – they are either detached from reality or being definitively dishonest with the public.

And I can, I am and I will use the full force of my powers to make sure that we tackle pollution as quickly as possible.

We were the first government to introduce new legal targets on water companies.

Our Environment Act requires water companies to publish information on overflows in real time, within in the hour, as well as to reduce them progressively.

Last summer, we published our plan for the toughest crackdown yet.

And I said recently that if we can go faster in our timelines, we will.

In February, I made it clear to water companies that they must set out exactly what they will do to clean up the mess – with the action plans on individual storm overflows due on my desk by the summer.

We will have a systematic approach and greater level of detail than ever before.

And let’s be clear.

The real challenge we face is pollution.

The source of it and the treatment of it.

And frankly we are all fed up. I was particularly horrified last week that one of the water companies seemingly did not know the reason for a single one of their overflows being triggered. That is absolutely shocking and reinforced the need for the detailed action plans.

So, I want to be unequivocal.

Water companies need to clean up their act.

Water companies must cover the costs.

And it is up to water companies to make sure they direct any profits they make from bill-payers’ hard-earned money into improvements.

I am not here to be an apologist for the water companies.

Far from it.

They are already subject to a criminal investigation.

But that level of investigation can be time-consuming.

So, we asked Ofwat and the EA what they needed to make improvements and what more they needed to tackle pollution in their role as the regulators – and we included the opportunities for those powers in the Environment Act and those tools are now being used to take on the fight against polluters.

So, as well as leaning on water companies to scale up investment, we are tightening regulation and toughening up enforcement.

We have already increased funding for the Environment Agency to increase enforcement, and now, through Ofwat, we are linking dividends to environmental improvement, to performance, and making sure shareholders cough up to cover bonuses at any company that fails to perform – because it can never be right for customers to be forced to foot the bill to reward those continue to pollute.

We are giving the Environment Agency the power to issue unlimited penalties for a wider range of offences without going through the courts.

That will happen by the end of this year – so polluters, you have been warned, you have to pay up, and pronto.

And in tackling pollution, we want to improve the ecological and chemical status of our waterbodies across the country.

But again this will take some time.

The impact of chemicals and mines long since banned or abandoned will take decades to break down – that is not my opinion, that is the scientific reality.

But as part of the process of formulating our new Plan for Water, I asked our scientists to help me understand why there is such a challenge when it comes to achieving Good Ecological Status in our waterbodies – and again we have been going to a level of detail, picking out is it the fish, is it the PH, is it different elements?

because frankly, I don’t think it is for a lack of effort. Indeed there has been quite a lot of investment going in.

But I have to say it turns out that achieving the gold standard for ecological status would mean taking us back to the natural state of our rivers from the year 1840.

That is neither practical nor desirable in many circumstances.

We are not going to take London back to a time before the Embankment was built, or remove the Thames Barrier – indeed we will need another before the end of the century – no one is contemplating dismantling half of Sheffield to let the River Don run free, but without that, it will never be scored as being ‘excellent’, even though salmon have returned to that part of the river Don for the first time in 200 years.

However, I do want to see systemic improvement, I want to see it delivered and it will be delivered through our catchment-based approach, with an action plan for every water body.

Of course that will involve tackling other sources of pollution.

While we crack down on the big polluters and make them pay, we will back those trying to make sure that they do the right thing and bring up their baseline, so we are tripling the money to help farmers manage slurry to £34 million, there will be another round of funding to help them store more water on their land, and more investment in the tech they need, so we support the sustainable food production that underpins long-term food security.

We are also doubling funding to £15 million, to cover all farmland in England under the Catchment Sensitive Farming programme.

We have seen groups of farms, businesses, and local councils working together and they have already leveraged in an additional £45 million from wider sources, so we want to back their ambition in tackling pollution.

Now while I said we can never stop talking about sewage and what we are going to do about it, I do want to turn to supply.

We are building on this – from making sure water companies have proper plans to improve our resilience to drought and flooding, to requiring them to invest billions of pounds in improvements, and in new large-scale water infrastructure – including transfers, recycling, and reservoirs.

We are publishing our National Policy Statement on Water Resources, which should streamline and speed up our planning processes, so we can build the infrastructure we need more quickly, and make sure our water system is fit for the future, bringing planning for flooding and water together – clearly investing more in improvements, more quickly is front and centre to this plan.

As well as setting an ambitious target for water companies to cut leakage in half, with financial penalties for those who fail to make timely progress, we are helping the water companies in some ways though by making sustainable drainage systems mandatory for new housing from next year.

The savviest developers have already discovered the magical powers of sustainable drainage – in many places they are known as a pond – the rain gardens – that help our sewer networks and provide a boost for biodiversity as well.

I have already mentioned food security and I am really concerned about the supply of water for food security.

I recognise we need to stop over-abstracting where it harms nature, we do need to make sure we have sufficient water for food production.

I see that very much in my role as an MP in Suffolk. Indeed challenges on abstraction has been pretty much the most critical issue there for my farmers since day one of being an MP.

Using water and careful irrigation techniques for many years, I recognise though that still the pressures are growing.

That is why the last time I was in Defra, I tried to bring people together to find a solution.

And I am pleased they did.

The result was the Felixstowe Hydrocycle and even now that is helping farmers make the most of precious freshwater to sustain their crops in the thirsty, sandy Suffolk soils, where both food crops and nature are desperate for clean water.

And I am pleased it restored nature too.

The salt marsh is recovering.

The extent of creatures there has grown – I have never seen so many swans in one place.

For me, the Felixstowe Hydrocycle is a blue print, not just of the technology but of the partnership approach that made it happen.

And we need that can do attitude replicated in other parts of the country where water supply is under stress. We will also be working with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to see what we can do to try to make it easier for farmers to have on-site reservoirs as well, recognising that they want the chance to try to store some water in the winter time.

Ladies and gentlemen, friends, I know a lot of people have put a lot of effort into making this come together today.

And I believe in setting out our comprehensive Plan for Water.

We recognise we have an interconnected system. We recognise we have a problem.

And in this plan we are setting out what we believe government, regulators, and water companies can do – to make sure standards and performance keep improving, as well as anticipating and preparing for further challenges ahead.

We are facing into this problem.

No one is shying away from it, because the public rightly expects nothing less – and I have to say to the public I am on your side, and fighting your corner.

Millions of us are already doing our bit on a daily basis at home, being careful with water, so my priority is making sure the water companies and regulators step up and do their bit too, so we make real progress on your priorities. And if we all pull in the same direction – in a sustained, national effort on a scale never undertaken before – we can do it.

So, my hope is that this ambitious, credible, deliverable Plan that I am proud to publish today helps us come together to address the issues we all care so much about, and get the job done,

So we can secure the clean and plentiful water we need, now and for generations to come.
05/04/2023
Jim Shannon – 2023 Speech on Unpaid Work Trials

The speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

I apologise for being a few minutes late, and I thank you, Mr Hollobone, for giving me the opportunity to contribute. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for leading today’s debate and for setting the scene so well. He referred towards the end of his comments to anyone who can hear the sound of his voice having had experience of this situation. As I always do, I will give an example of someone I know back home in Northern Ireland, to add a regional perspective to the debate—one that is replicated right across this whole great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Unpaid work trials have proven incredibly common among some employers—sometimes I wonder whether they do it on purpose—especially in industries like hospitality, where young people tend to get their first jobs as young teenagers. There are a great many people across this United Kingdom who have good jobs now, but this is what happened when they first began. We must do all we can to enforce paid work trials and make young people aware of their employment rights. When someone is starting off, and has the excitement of a trial that might lead to a first job, they say, “I’ll definitely go and I’ll endure a wee bit of hardship or pain to get this job.” If they get it, that is good. If not, they feel a wee bit taken advantage of.

The advice from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is that using unpaid work trials does not contravene any current legislation for businesses, if they are part of a genuine recruitment process, do not last longer than a reasonable amount of time and are required to demonstrate the applicant’s suitability to the work. Are they part of a genuine recruitment process, or are they are a way of taking advantage of some people?

The hon. Member for Glasgow South outlined the issue very well. We look to the Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for a response; I am pleased to see him in his place. It is good to see the shadow Ministers for the SNP and for Labour here too, the hon. Members for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders).

In Westminster Hall, in a past life for the Minister if not for me, we would have been on the same side, debating issues like banking. We were both lowly Back Benchers then. He has been elevated to greater heights, whereas I am still a lowly Back Bencher. He has reached heights that I will never be able to achieve, and that is a fact—I am not a member of the Conservative party, so it is highly unlikely to happen. I say that in jest!

Work trials are commonly used to allow an employee to see how a business is run and for an employer to see how the employee will settle in. When they are done right, they give the employer a chance to see just what a person can achieve. The problem is that, more often than not, people work an extensive shift and are not paid a penny for it.

One of the young girls who works in my office told me a story similar to that outlined by the hon. Member for Glasgow South, who set the scene so very well. My youngest member of staff recalls a work shift that she did when she was 17 years old—before she ever came to me—for a café in her local area, where she worked from 10 o’clock until 4 o’clock and was entitled to no pay for the shift. Now, that situation was understood between the employee and the employer. However—here’s the story—for the trial she was required to wear a black shirt and black trousers, which she did not have. If she wanted to do the trial and be considered for the job, guess what? She had to go and buy the black shirt and trousers. That cost an additional sum, which would ultimately be wasted once she got her uniform. I found that a bit hard to understand. On certain occasions, these trials just do not seem worth their while when the whole matter is taken into account.

Although there is no legal obligation to pay someone for a trial, I would certainly put forward the argument, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow South, that the individual, by working a trial, is still making money for that company, so they should be reimbursed. That is the crux of the matter. Some employers choose not to take staff on after trial periods, so they should—I was going to say “perhaps”, but they really should do this—offer the minimum wage for the day or for the number of hours worked. That would be fair and justifiable, given the time that the person has provided to make money for the company in their trial period.

I am also shocked to hear plenty of stories of people having been made to work not one day, but a week’s trial at zero payment, only to learn that if they leave that employment within the year, they must pay back the money they made in the trial period. Again, that is immoral, wrong and a disgraceful way to treat employees. Although the legalities around paying people for trial shifts represent a grey area, individual employers should have discretion to ensure that their employees are treated properly.

We know the stories. I gave one example and the hon. Member for Glasgow South has given examples. I am quite sure that my friend the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West, will give more examples than anybody else, because—I agree with hon. Member for Glasgow South—he has a knowledge of these matters, and I look forward to hearing his contribution. Some of the stories we hear are disgraceful, distasteful and just awful.

We have a role to play in ensuring that all employees of or at small, medium or large companies have a good outcome. That is really not too much to ask: simply fair play and fair moneys for time and effort spent. At the moment, that is not the case. There is a duty on the Minister and the Government to sort out the legalities, and ensure that employers pay their employees the wages they should be getting. I very much adhere to and believe in the saying, “A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay,” which is why I fully support the hon. Member for Glasgow South.

04/04/2023
Stewart McDonald – 2023 Speech on Unpaid Work Trials

The speech made by Stewart McDonald, the SNP MP for Glasgow South, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the use of unpaid work trials.

It is always good to see you in the Chair in Westminster Hall, Mr Hollobone. You will remember, because I think you might have been present, that I introduced in the previous Parliament a Bill to amend the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 in order to outlaw the practice of unpaid work trials. I will come back to the substance of that Bill, which is now a piece of history, but I want to begin with the genesis of this entire issue and why I decided to take it up as a Member of Parliament in the private Members’ Bills selection.

There is a bubble tea company called Mooboo, which had an outlet in Glasgow that was offering unpaid work trials—the practice of inviting applicants to apply for a job and making them work for a trial period for which they are not paid. Although there are many variations on what an unpaid work trial looks like, this was perhaps the most extreme version that I have come across, because the applicants were invited to work for a full 40 hours without payment, at the end of which they were or were not offered a job. That is a particularly egregious and extreme example, but when I decided to take up the case on behalf of a constituent who went through that process, I started to find that this practice was rife and much more common than I had first thought. As I mentioned, it presents itself in many guises.

Although that example is at the extreme end of the practice of unpaid work trials, there are many intricacies and differences in the way it presents itself. When I started to talk about this issue publicly and wrote to Ministers and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, I started to gather in my inbox various horror stories about the practice of unpaid work trials across the country. A study in November 2017 by Middlesex University and the Trust for London, called Unpaid Britain, shows that unpaid work trials contribute to about £3 billion in missing wages in the United Kingdom. That figure is six years old, and I do not know what it is today—perhaps the Minister has a better idea—but I would wager that it is probably higher now than it was then. Polling from YouGov shows that 65% of Brits say that such a practice is unfair and only 24% think it is fair.

The way in which unpaid work trials present themselves is often different, as I mentioned, but it is none the less insidious. Quite often an applicant will apply for a job where the trial period may be an hour or two, so that they can come in and show what they are made of—whether that is in a restaurant, a cocktail bar, a hotel, a retail setting or whatever it might be. I discovered that quite often those trials were being offered to applicants for jobs that did not actually exist. Applicants were being exploited to cover staffing shortages and busy periods, such as Christmas trading. Those poor people had often spent hours applying for jobs, sending in CVs and filling out application forms, often going through the soul-destroying process of hearing nothing back. They were being invited to unpaid trials for jobs that did not exist, that were never going to materialise and that they would never be offered.

I suspect the Government position is the same as it has always been—that legislation is not required. I think we can all agree that that it is an egregious thing to ask somebody seeking employment to go through. It is fraud; it is morally fraudulent and must almost certainly be legally fraudulent—except it is not. I have no ambition to relitigate the Government talking out my Bill. The Minister who did so is no longer a Member of Parliament, and I am, so I like to think I won that fight with that Member at the time. When I talked to Ministers and officials about this at the time, we all agreed it was an abhorrent and unacceptable practice, but the Government position was that legislation was not required to fix it.

I would say to the Government today that the fine guidance they produced for employers on unpaid work trials has not had the effect that we all wanted, which was that they would not be used at all and certainly not used in the egregiously fraudulent way that I described. At the time, there was some good will on the Government side, among Labour colleagues and on my own side, which even in today’s Scottish National party environment still exists.

The fact that the practice is still going on and partly contributing to billions of pounds in missing wages that people should rightfully receive—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)

I am listening carefully to the hon. Member’s speech, and he is making some very valid points. I agree that such behaviour is egregious. Is the £3 billion he quotes for unpaid work trials or unpaid work? There is an important difference between the two.

Stewart Malcolm McDonald

Yes—and no, in terms of the Minister’s final point about there being a difference. The unpaid work trials contribute to the figure of £3 billion. I am not saying that the trials are worth £3 billion, but the study by the university concluded that that was part of the bigger £3 billion picture. I confess I do not think there has been an updated study. I do not know if the Government have anything to share with us this afternoon. I would be amazed if that figure had not grown since that study was done six years ago.

Among all the good will to try to stop this miserable exploitation, the Opposition and the Government arrived at different conclusions. I was of the view, supported by colleagues in the Opposition, that legislation was required —an amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998—to outlaw the practice. The Government took the view that guidance was adequate, but it is not. It was proven not to be as recently as December last year in a court ruling. The ruling in Ms P Karimi and Ms C Patricio v. Fadi Ltd, published by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service on 2 December 2022, found that the claimant was entitled to the minimum wage for all hours worked during the trial period. Reasoning the judgment, the employment judge, Judge D Wright, stated that the

“legislation does not give explicit guidance”

as to how long these unpaid trial shifts may last.

An exploitation had taken place, whereby someone had worked in an unpaid trial, and the tribunals service determined that they should have been paid for it, but the judge said that the guidance is not sufficient on the regulation of work trials. I am not against work trials. I entirely support an employer’s right to say to someone, “Come in and show us what you are made of. Come in and show us that you actually have the skills and experience that you set out in the interview process.” What I do not support is exploiting people for jobs that do not exist, or for covering staffing shortages and doing so for 40 hours, as in the extreme examples that I mentioned at the start of my remarks.

Forty hours is an extreme and unusual example. What I thought I would find initially was that the norm would be two or three hours—half a shift or a morning. What I found more often than not was that the time was longer, and the physical experience of the unpaid work trial was demeaning. The number of people—mostly young people—who would work their unpaid trial shift and then just be left, not told whether they had a job, confused as to what was supposed to happen next, clearly tells us that better regulation of trial periods needs to be forthcoming from the Government. I do not think that that is too much to ask in this day and age. A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay; it could even be said that it is a broadly Conservative value. It is something that even my colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) can rally around.

Let us be clear about what my proposed legislation was not; it was not about banning trial periods, and it did not concern itself with things like unpaid internships. Although I find them objectionable, I felt that would require its own piece of separate legislation. The aim of my proposal—the banning of exploiting people through unpaid work trials—remains an entirely just one.

Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

I thank my good friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. There is another way of dealing with this issue. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government have been promising an employment Bill for the last six years. For some reason it is yet to become a reality. Does he agree that if the Government were to put forward an employment Bill, that would allow both of us to table amendments to address this topic?

Stewart Malcolm McDonald

With all things around employment law, in my party I defer to my hon. Friend. He has a strong history of standing up for employment practices and a knowledge that surpasses mine when it comes to the detail of modern-day employment law.

To conclude my remarks, I think the aim of my Bill —although I suppose it is now an ex-Bill—was entirely just and reasonable. It has been shown in the time that has passed since the falling of that proposed legislation that the guidance the Government produced, although perfectly sensible and reasonable, is not enough. I still get emails, as do many Members from across the House, from people who are being exploited by unpaid work trials or, worse, fake work trials for jobs that do not even exist.

I will end with the example of a young Glasgow student, Ellen Reynolds, who petitioned Parliament a few years ago. She successfully gained the number of signatures required to have a debate in Westminster Hall on an unpaid trial shift that she was asked to take part in. There was no guarantee of a job at the end of it and she even had to buy here own uniform to take part in that unpaid trial shift. That is not an uncommon experience. All across Britain today, there are people working a couple of hours, half a shift, or half a morning —whatever it is—to show what they are made of, and they are not being paid for it, and they should be paid for it. They are not getting expenses for it, and they should be, at the very least.

We have a quirk of the system here, where exploitation is rife. I would bet that every person who can hear the sound of my voice knows somebody who has gone through an unpaid work trial at some point in their life, especially if they know groups of young people. The Government and this House have a duty to bring this exploitation to an end. That would not cost industry enormous amounts of money. It would bring in a bit of regulation that is right and proportionate. It would give some dignity to applicants, and some dignity into the workplace that is currently missing.

This is a small gap in the broad structure of employment law, but one that very much needs attention and could very easily fixed be with an amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. When the Minister gets to his feet today, I suspect he will not be able to furnish the House with new legislation, but I hope he will be able to say something positive on statutory changes to end the exploitation of unpaid work trials and closing that loophole, which at the minute means that people do not get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

04/04/2023
Amanda Solloway – 2023 Speech on Fuel Costs for Rural Households and Communities

The speech made by Amanda Solloway, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

May I first say what an excellent speech that was, and what thought-provoking words have come from this debate? I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for initiating the debate, and for her additional work on supporting rural households and communities.

The Government have implemented several comprehensive support schemes across the United Kingdom to assist our rural households and communities. In particular, I would like to address the issue of the support being provided in Scotland, given the importance of these communities to Scotland, as well as the wider United Kingdom. I am aware of the significant proportion of Scottish domestic properties not on the gas grid; as the hon. Member said, it is estimated to be about 65% of homes in rural Scotland. These communities face significant challenges. The number of households classed as being in extreme fuel poverty is about three times higher in rural areas than in the rest of Scotland. As hon. Members will know, many factors influence that, including a longer heating season, exposed conditions, and historically poor housing stock. As a result, the Government’s energy schemes have rightly offered much-needed support to rural communities over the winter in the face of high energy costs.

A range of domestic and non-domestic support has been provided to rural communities, and particularly off-grid users. The alternative fuels payment is available to households that use as their main heating source alternative fuels, such as heating oil or liquefied petroleum gas. That includes many Scottish rural households. More than 85% of relevant customers in Great Britain will have received their payment automatically via their electricity supplier in February 2023. Those who have not received the payment automatically will need to apply to the AFP alternative fund via a short online form on gov.uk.

Helen Morgan

On that point, I cannot reiterate enough how many people might not be able to access that online portal. I am aware that there is a phone number, but the messaging on and advertising of that number have been quite poor. Constituents have come to us asking about this, and we have pointed them in the right direction, but there will be people out there who are not aware that they can access that support, because they cannot get online.

Amanda Solloway

I thank the hon. Member for a very valid point. As she points out, we have been engaging. We have the helpline; we have a contact number. We are trying to reach out as much as possible. I encourage all hon. Members, on the record, to reach out and encourage people to go through the website portal or, indeed, through the helpline.

The energy bills support scheme is being delivered as a £400 discount on electricity bills, provided by suppliers in monthly instalments from October 2022 to March 2023. It has been delivered to 2.6 million households in Scotland. As March is almost over, may I use this opportunity to again urge hon. Members to join the Government in highlighting to their constituents that it is important that traditional prepayment meter users redeem their vouchers for that scheme now? Electricity suppliers can reissue expired or lost vouchers, but they must all be used by 30 June, when the scheme closes. It is vital that households in Scotland that use traditional prepayment meters and receive EBSS in the form of vouchers make use of the support being provided to them. Our latest transparency publication data shows that as of 1 March, almost 340,000 vouchers in Scotland remain unused—a point to which hon. Members have referred.

Households in Great Britain that do not have a domestic electricity supply, such as off-grid households and park home residents, and who have not been able to receive their support automatically, can now apply for their £400 support through the energy bills support scheme alternative funding. I encourage households that are eligible to apply for support before the scheme closes on 31 May 2023, either through the online application form on gov.uk, or by calling our contact centre helpline. I would be happy to share this information with MPs following the debate.

The final aspect of domestic support that we have provided is the energy price guarantee, which reduces electricity and gas costs for domestic customers. It helps to lower annual bills, combat fuel poverty and maintain supplier market stability. The scheme covers approximately 2.5 million households across Scotland and 29 million households across the UK in total. I hope the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East was pleased to hear the recent announcement that the energy price guarantee will be kept at £2,500 for an additional three months from April to June, providing more savings to households.

Tim Farron

I am grateful for the Minister’s comprehensive answers. The support that businesses get will expire, which is a problem that we could address. Lumped under the category of “businesses” are our hospices, which have seen a 350% increase in fuel bills. Not only are they getting insufficient support now, but they will soon get nothing. Will the Minister consider a special package to support hospices, which clearly cannot turn the heating down?

Amanda Solloway

I thank the hon. Member for that question. I assure him that I am reaching out to a whole host of stakeholders, and am talking to a variety of groups about that very issue. Alongside the support we are offering to households, there is the energy bill relief scheme, introduced in October 2022 for the winter; we will continue to run it until the end of the month. The support offered by this package is worth £7.3 billion and is available across the United Kingdom.

It is right that we balance continued support with energy costs with our duty to the taxpayer. Energy prices are coming down, but we must also recognise that prices remain above historical levels. For that reason, although the energy bill relief scheme is coming to an end, we have pledged to provide further support to non-domestic customers, including our farming industry, from April onwards, through the energy bills discount scheme. Under this support package, energy and trade intensive industries and domestic customers on heat networks will receive more than the baseline element of support.

I thank again the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East. I give my assurance that I am reaching out to a variety of stakeholders, including suppliers. This has been an incredibly important debate, and I sincerely thank her for securing it. It is important to raise awareness of the support for rural communities in these challenging times.

04/04/2023
Angela Crawley – 2023 Speech on Fuel Costs for Rural Households and Communities

The speech made by Angela Crawley, the SNP MP for Lanark and Hamilton East, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the cost of fuel on rural households and communities.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts, and to bring this debate to Westminster Hall this morning. Around 2 million people across the UK are reliant on off-grid gas supplies to heat their homes, including heating oil, liquefied petroleum gas, coal and biomass. According to the latest fuel poverty statistics, rural homes are much more likely to be reliant on off-grid gas and more likely to be less energy-efficient. That has made rural households across my constituency of Lanark and Hamilton East, and across the UK, much more susceptible to the impact of the rising cost of fuel. In 2022, households in rural areas had the highest rate of fuel poverty, at 15.9% compared with 11.1% for those in urban areas.

In summer last year, I was contacted by Roy, a constituent from Lanark who was worried about heating his home over the winter. In June 2022, the price of kerosene for Roy was £1 plus VAT per litre, with further increases on the horizon. With a minimum order of 500 litres as the industry standard, it was becoming unaffordable to keep up with the price increases. For Roy, the £400 energy bill support, the warm home discount and the alternative fuel payment simply do not go far enough. Paying for fuel up front with the exponential price increases that this winter brought is a significant hurdle for rural households and communities. Issuing alternative fuel payments months after households have already put their fuel order on their credit cards or taken money out of savings to cover the cost simply does make sense.

Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)

Some households have still not received payments because they are having difficulty with their electricity supplier or their landlord. The delay in accessing support for off-grid households is causing real hardship in rural areas. It seems unfair that people who have to pay for their energy up front—often the most vulnerable people—are still waiting in some cases for Government support with their household bills.

Angela Crawley

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Although I welcome the fact that the Government recognised that there is a need, the response has been too slow. In reality, people, especially pensioners, had no more money on which to draw to pay up front. That has had a knock-on effect on many households, in particular many of mine in rural Clydesdale.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this subject forward. I agree with her, but it is not just about fuel; it is also about rural isolation. Does she agree that rural social isolation in the farming community is compounded by the rise in fuel costs? Going to young farmers’ club events, or something similar, does not boil down to finding time; it is about whether people have the resources to go. We need not only look at rural households and their fuel costs, but offer greater support to the farming community than it currently receives.

Angela Crawley

I thank the hon. Member, as always, for his intervention. He makes an important point. I am truly blessed to be the representative for Lanark and Hamilton East, which is home to a very wide and diverse community, including Clydesdale, the Clyde valley, which has a large population of farms. That community has been adversely affected by these costs.

With all due respect to the Government, there is little that can be done in retrospect to ease the impact this issue has had on livelihoods. Issuing alternative fuel payments months after households have already put fuel orders on credit cards or taken money out of savings to cover the costs does not make sense. It is all well and good for households that have wriggle room or back-up savings, but many do not, as we all know. Rural households are often occupied by pensioners reliant on their pension as their only source of income. They may not have the means to stretch their budget any further.

There are still households that are eligible for the alternative fuel payment but have not yet received it. The picture is even bleaker for those who are not connected to the gas grid and rely on electricity to heat their homes. They are not eligible for the alternative fuel payments, despite the latest fuel poverty statistics indicating that households using electricity as a main source of fuel for heating have the highest likelihood of experiencing fuel poverty.

Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)

The hon. Lady is being generous, and I congratulate her on securing a really important debate. Families in rural communities face excessive costs for fuel not only to heat their homes but to get about. There is no public transport for many of us in places such as Cumbria, and when there is, it is very expensive. People need a car just to get to work or study, and to shop. The coalition Government brought in the rural fuel duty relief scheme, but only 10,500 residents in the whole of England qualify for it. People from Brough, Appleby, Kirkby Stephen, Shap, Ambleside, Coniston or Hawkshead who need to travel are not able to benefit from the scheme. Would the hon. Lady advise the Minister to expand the scheme to ensure more communities can take advantage of it?

Angela Crawley

The hon. Member has made a compelling case in his own right. I acknowledge that transport is devolved in Scotland, but he makes an important point. Will the Minister say what she is doing to ensure that the remaining households who are eligible for the payments receive them as soon as possible? How does she intend to ameliorate the impact the rising cost of fuel is having on households who are off the gas grid and reliant on electricity to heat their homes?

After facing increasing pressure to introduce a price cap to help domestic fuel customers with high fuel prices, the Government, unsurprisingly, fell on the side of big business. They were too concerned about the impact that placing a price cap on heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas would have on market competition, rather than the impoverishment of households struggling to afford to heat their homes. My office has had the unfortunate job of forwarding the Government’s position on to concerned constituents who are struggling to keep up with the cost of being off grid. One constituent said:

“My concern is that my future financial security will be damaged just to keep my off-grid gas supplier making a healthy profit.”

This year, I have been surveying my constituents to gather their experiences and opinions on the cost of living. When asked what the one thing I could raise in Parliament for them would be, an overwhelming majority of responses were concerned with the immense profits of energy suppliers. This week, there have been increasing rumours that the windfall tax the Government have already put in place may be relaxed. What would the Minister say to my constituents and the many other people who are calling for a more stringent windfall tax regime to be implemented, rather than relaxed?

The winter may be drawing to an end, but the issue remains. For Roy, the price of kerosene in April is estimated to be around 71p per litre excluding VAT. This month, according to the Office for National Statistics, the price sits at around 81p, which is still 35p higher than this time last year, and 32p higher than it was before the pandemic in 2020. I am sure the Minister will be quick to reel off all the support measures the Government have put in place throughout this crisis, and I recognise that a number of measures have been put in place, but many people fell through the gaps, and Roy and many of my rural constituents are among them.

The reality is that the measures introduced simply do not go far enough for those who are off the grid. On top of the pressures of the rising cost of fuel, increases to standing charges have been allowed to happen under the radar. Because of that, while households across the UK may receive some relief through the support measures put in place this winter, they are still feeling the pinch. Will the Government commit to taking more meaningful action to reduce the exponential increases to standing charges? What support is she prepared to put in place to support those reliant on off-grid gas to heat their homes, outwith the context of a cost of living crisis?

I will close my contribution by discussing the picture in Scotland. The Scottish Government’s recent statistics show that one third of households in remote rural areas are classified as experiencing extreme fuel poverty. In Scotland, 65% of rural dwellings are not covered by the gas grid, and our remote and rural communities are facing annual energy bills of more than double the UK average. That discrepancy was ignored in the UK Government’s energy support package this winter and in the spring statement. Scotland is abundant in clean, green and renewable energy and, indeed, oil, but we cannot reap the benefits while under Westminster control. Rural households, which have contributed so much to the export of renewable energy, pay exponentially for being off the grid. That cannot continue. In my opinion, Scotland needs full powers of independence to truly equalise the energy price discrepancies between rural and urban communities. I hope that the Minister will respond with action.

04/04/2023
Stephen Parkinson – 2023 Speech at Heritage Day (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay)

The speech made by Stephen Parkinson, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, at Charterhouse in London on 2 March 2023.

“Thank you very much and thank you to you, Lizzie, for inviting me to be here today. I’m delighted to be the Minister for both Arts and Heritage and to be able to talk to you all here at the Charterhouse. And what a glorious building this is – inside and out, looking splendid in the sunshine – and what a fantastic room, so thank you for having me here with you.

This is a brilliant part of London to be holding Heritage Day in. As well as the Charterhouse, a number of us started the day in the fabulous Great Hall at St. Bart’s Hospital, where the National Lottery Heritage Fund was unveiling its new 10-year strategy. St. Bart’s celebrates its 900th anniversary this year, along with St. Bartholomew the Great, which is part of the same foundation, both great examples of living heritage, still doing the things – providing clinical and spiritual nourishment to people – that they’ve been doing for close to a millennium.

Sir John Betjeman – one of my heritage heroes – lived alongside it in Cloth Fair, in what has been dubbed ‘the oldest house in London’, the only surviving residential home that pre-dates the Great Fire of London, and now brilliantly looked after by the Landmark Trust, where you can walk in his footsteps and sit in his sitting room. If you’re itching for a pint at the end of today’s discussions, there are so many wonderful pubs – I’d particularly recommend the Hand & Shears, which has been serving people on that site since 1532.

Or you could wander home through Smithfield Market, which has nearly 800 years of continuous trading there. And if, like me, you are sad that that’s coming to an end soon, you can cheer yourself up by seeing the fantastic work which is already underway for its new home for the Museum of London – so it’s a really brilliant neighbourhood you’ve chosen to meet in.

I hope that today’s meeting, and the discussions you’ve been having today and yesterday, have been a good opportunity to come together and discuss the challenges and opportunities which are facing the heritage sector.

As a history graduate, I’m passionate about history and heritage, so I was delighted to be appointed Minister responsible for Heritage. It has been wonderful to get out and about and meet lots of people – I joined DCMS towards the end of the pandemic so I’ve been meeting people as they’ve been able to get back to their sites and venues. I’ve seen the strong collaboration across the sector, and across all of our sectors at DCMS, during the challenging months of the pandemic – so thank you to all of you who were helping each other and helping us out through those challenging times.

As you know, as of last month DCMS has a new Secretary of State – a frequent occurrence, I know. We now have Lucy Frazer, and a renewed focus on Culture, Media and Sport – which encompasses heritage, the arts, and the creative industries. I’m sure there are many here who hark back fondly to the days of the Department for National Heritage, but heritage and tourism are very much part of the central work of the Department, even if they’re not quite in the acronym. The changes reflect the Prime Minister’s recognition of the importance of our sectors to the UK economy – and build on our position as a global leader in them.

And heritage of course is a key part of that. Our heritage, and the sectors that sustain it, are an important source of economic prosperity and growth for our country, as well as nourishing well-being. It is hard to define heritage in a way that fully encapsulates the depth and breadth of our national heritage – from thousands of historic buildings, parks, and natural landscapes, to ancient monuments, maritime wrecks, and archaeological sites.

What we know is that heritage is a key part of the UK’s global brand, and an important source of economic prosperity and growth for our country. It is a significant draw for tourists from all over the world, from the historic landscape of the national parks like the Lake District to venues like the Tower of London which attracts so many people year in, year out. Heritage attracts millions of domestic and international tourists each year, and the visitor economy plays a vital role in driving growth.

And of course during the months of the pandemic when we were all taking staycations, I think people have been rediscovering the heritage and the destinations that are right on their doorstep and looking at them afresh, which is very exciting.

This year will give us plenty more to celebrate and promote.

It was wonderful news to hear that Thornborough Henges have been saved for the nation, and are now part of the National Heritage Collection. And today, through this conference, we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Heritage Alliance, the largest coalition of heritage interests in England, with over 190 independent organisations. Over the last two decades the Alliance has played a vital role in protecting our nation’s heritage. So thank you for that incredible work over the last 20 years, and here’s to many more successes in the decades to come.

As I mentioned, this morning saw the launch of the Heritage Fund’s new ten-year strategy, which I was pleased to attend with many of you. It is great to see the Heritage Fund’s unwavering commitment to ensuring that – through both open and targeted investment – a broad range of the UK’s heritage will continue to be supported and valued and cared for, for the widest possible audiences.

In May, of course, we have the Coronation of His Majesty The King, something that very few people living have experienced before. It’s a huge opportunity to show off the rich history of this country and for people across the UK to come together and celebrate. Shortly after that, we have the Eurovision Song Contest in Liverpool – a culturally different but equally exciting opportunity which we’re very proud to be hosting on behalf of Ukraine, and a chance for Liverpool, that fine city with wonderfully rich musical heritage, to show itself off on the world stage.

But I know that we can’t look forward without also looking at some of the challenges which we all know we still face. I appreciate that, for lots of organisations, reserves were depleted during the pandemic – and now inflation and the rising costs of living because of the invasion of Ukraine and the actions of Russia are having a significant impact; that the economic headwinds are still blowing strongly and that the environment is still a challenging one for many.

As you know, the Government has taken action – we were proud to stand with you during the pandemic through the Cultural Recovery Fund. I’m so grateful to Historic England and the Heritage Fund and others who helped us get that money to the organisations that needed it so we could welcome people back. And of course for the past six months, through the Energy Bill Relief Scheme, we’ve been supporting organisations through a discount on wholesale gas and electricity prices. From April, we’ll continue to provide support through the Energy Bills Discount Scheme, which will continue to help businesses over the next 12 months.

In addition, we will also offer support to energy- and trade-intensive industries – including heritage sites – with a higher discount applied to 70% of energy volumes. Details on how that will work, and how widely it will apply, are yet to be determined, but we wouldn’t have got that outcome and that recognition without the brilliant collaboration we’ve had across the sector, so thank you for the evidence and the insights you’ve helped give the team at DCMS, which helped us represent you effectively across Government.

Alongside this, environmental sustainability and reaching Net Zero carbon dioxide emissions are a key priority for the Government. Heritage plays a unique role in our journey to a cleaner, greener, and more sustainable future. And of course heritage knows only too well the risks to our cultural, historical, archaeological and marine environment from climate change.

We need to use our internationally-renowned expertise in the UK to make significant changes in the coming years to protect our natural and historic environment, and to limit the impact of climate change.

There are more than 5 million homes in England built before the end of the First World War. That represents 20% of England’s housing stock. If we want to reduce our energy consumption, we need to ensure that historic buildings are a successful part of the transition to Net Zero.

Our aim is to ensure that the right balance is struck between our Net Zero goals, protecting heritage, and ensuring the positive adaptation of our existing housing stock.

Not only do we need to create incentives for that sort of positive adaptation, we need to ensure that the workforce is there to deliver it and to meet the scale of the challenge required. As part of the review into Adapting Historic Homes for Energy Efficiency, we are working with other Government Departments to see how we can boost the skills of existing builders and craftspeople, and how we can create a new pipeline of future talent. We’re doing some work with the Department for Education on a new Cultural Education Plan – I’m glad that heritage and heritage skills are being reflected in the panel that are helping us to do that work.

We are also committed to working with you to explore potential ways to encourage the repair and maintenance of historic buildings. This includes what I know is the long-running issue of VAT on maintenance of buildings.

I am determined to explore opportunities for reform, and to understand the implications of any potential change to VAT on repairs and maintenance of historic buildings. Our new Secretary of State has come fresh from being Housing Minister, and she’s previously been Financial Secretary to HM Treasury, which are both very important in helping us make that case across Whitehall. We’ve already been discussing the issue with colleagues in Government. and we’ll continue to work with you on that.

One of the Government’s top priorities, which I know you have been keenly engaged in, is levelling up every part of the UK ensuring that everyone has the ability to engage with the opportunities that are around them.

Our country’s world-class heritage – from our historic coastline, our industrial buildings and inspiring places of worship – are a vital part of our national identity.

This means that recognising, protecting, and celebrating our heritage can (and indeed already does) play a critical role in levelling up, by contributing to our local and national economy, regenerating places that have too long felt overlooked, enhancing well-being, and building pride in place. The Government’s levelling up funding programmes are helping to do that.

As part of the first round of the Levelling Up Fund, places all over the country were supported to deliver a wide range of projects with culture and heritage at their heart. The Fund is enabling Wentworth Woodhouse, for instance, to transform its riding school and stables to create new hospitality and visitor centres – and, in the second round of the fund that was announced at the beginning of this year, there were many more inspiring projects that I look forward to visiting as the funding unlocks them and helps them be delivered.

Other heritage-led initiatives, like the £95 million High Streets Heritage Action Zones programme, which is funded by the Government and delivered by Historic England, also have a key role to play in empowering people to engage with their local heritage.

The Secretary of State and I celebrated this programme only last week at a Parliamentary reception. It’s been the largest ever Government investment in built heritage, benefiting 67 high streets across England. I’ve seen some myself, including in a visit to Coventry during its time as City of Culture, and in Gloucester.

It is important that, as we seek to boost growth and regenerate places across the country, that the planning system continues to protect our heritage buildings, and ensures that these historic assets are complemented by new, high-quality buildings which will reinforce and add to the distinctive character of local places.

I am pleased that heritage protection has been recently championed in planning legislation through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill which is currently before the House of Lords.

The heritage provisions in the Bill aim to provide greater clarity on requirements, standards, and processes when dealing with heritage – and to enable a more streamlined approach to be taken in the new planning system.

The Bill will also deliver planning reforms to ensure that new development is more beautiful, produces more local infrastructure, is shaped by local people’s democratic wishes, improves environmental outcomes, and takes place with neighbourhoods very much in mind.

I want neighbourhoods and communities to continue to celebrate their local heritage in places across the country, and to harness the power of the past to build links between people and the places they live and work in today.

That’s why I’m keen to explore new and more ambitious ways of doing this – including looking into the expansion of the official Blue Plaque scheme beyond London. I know that’s something that has been looked at before, and I know there are brilliant schemes across the country where people already recognise local figures that are celebrated in their communities, but I’d like to see that taking place not just in our nation’s capital.

Blue Plaques help people to understand and value their local heritage, and to take pride in their community. Since 1866, the scheme has been focused on London alone – and while there are many brilliant schemes that sit alongside it, I think it is right that the official scheme run by a national organisation should be nation-wide.

Indeed, the politician who inspired the scheme in the 1860s, William Ewart, was born in Liverpool, and sat in the Commons for that city, as well as for Wigan and Bletchingley in Surrey. He died in Devizes in Wiltshire. None of those places are covered by the scheme he bequeathed us.

I want young people across the country to see that people from their local area have done things of which they can still today be so proud.

It’s very fitting that on World Book Day – particularly as we walked past the wonderful Florin Court, which so many people know from the TV adaptation of Agatha Christie’s Poirot novels – that we can think of Dame Agatha today. She has a Blue Plaque on her house in Kensington, but she was born in Torquay and lived a lot of her life in Berkshire and Oxfordshire. She’s world renowned – and people everywhere should know the links that she and figures like her have to their communities.

Robert Stephenson, the great railway pioneer, was born in Willington Quay on the banks of the Tyne. He sat in Parliament for Whitby, in North Yorkshire. I want those communities and the world to know what a pioneer he was – and what a great gift he gave to the world through the engineering which we celebrate in railway heritage. I look forward to working with English Heritage and others who have views on the best way of doing that.

I would like to finish thanking you all again for the hard work that you and your organisations have done during the pandemic and since, and the many years before that as well, in support of our nation’s great heritage.

Thank you to the Heritage Alliance for putting on this fantastic event. It’s been brilliant working with you since I got heritage in my job title, and I look forward to continue doing that in the future.”

04/04/2023
Holly Lynch – 2023 Speech on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery

The speech made by Holly Lynch, the Labour MP for Halifax, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). I will start, as others have, by paying tribute to and thanking the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for securing the debate. In addition, I thank him for all the campaigning work that he has done in this policy area. He shared powerful examples of where the failures in the system have further compounded the risk, particularly for children, of being re-trafficked. I also join him from the outset in paying tribute to the incredible work of Justice and Care, which has had a transformative effect. I have had the opportunity to see their victim navigators in West Yorkshire and the tremendous impact that they have had in supporting victims and securing prosecutions.

We know that the number of victims of these heinous crimes is increasing. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), like almost every Member who has contributed to the debate, made the point that we were once so proud of our modern slavery laws, but, as we have just heard, we seem to be taking backward steps in identifying victims and supporting them through to the prosecution of their abusers. Nearly 17,000 potential victims were referred to the NRM in 2022—a 33% increase on the previous year—but charities have predicted, using police data, that there could be at least 100,000 victims in the UK.

I want to share the story of Sanu, who was tricked into living and working in slave-like conditions in the UK. For seven years, he was beaten, threatened and given no wages for the constant work he did in his trafficker’s shop. He had had to beg for money and food. Now he is living in a Salvation Army safe house where the support he is receiving is helping him to overcome his ordeal.

Sanu told the Salvation Army:

“I came to the UK to study. That was my goal…I worked at least 50 to 60 hours a week and sometimes 90 to 100. I would start at 8 o’clock and have to carry on until he said I could leave. I wasn’t allowed to go anywhere; no mobile phone. I couldn’t go to the GP. He said if you talk to anyone then the police will come and get you…My trafficker knew I had nowhere to stay and no other friends. He knew how to control me. He controlled me like in a video game with a remote controller…Every minute every second he took from me. Even now I can still be scared. What happened to me is all wrong. I still have trauma and nightmares…I try to sleep but I still see his face, it is like he’s still chasing me.”

I do not need to tell the Members who are here in Westminster Hall that when we talk about victims, we are not solely talking about foreign nationals. The reporting of British victims to the NRM is rising, and 2022 saw the highest number of British possible victims identified since the NRM began. Most of those, as we have heard, were children. In 2022, one NRM referral in five was for a British child, and many more British children are thought to be vulnerable. Research suggests that there is a failure to refer many British victims to the NRM because they are not identified as victims of modern slavery or because of missed opportunities to safeguard them.

In the face of such a crisis, we need a system that finds victims, protects them, supports them and helps them to rebuild their lives, but as things stand that is not happening. Many victims never access the NRM support system, and if they do, there are huge delays in decision making. That means that many are stuck in the system, receiving wildly varying quality of care and unable to move through. Once people are confirmed as victims, there are few meaningful support mechanisms to help them rebuild their lives, and the impact of that on their mental health must not be understated.

How do we ensure that those vulnerable victims are reached and receive help once they have been identified? We desperately need to improve the first responder role. Effective, informed training and safeguarding procedures are needed to ensure that victims do not slip through the net. Training and policies need to include increasing understanding of the specific needs, circumstances and entitlements of British national victims, improving the transition from child to adult services, and the development of professional modern slavery risk assessment tools for British nationals.

Let me look at how we can improve the decision-making process. Decision makers must have modern slavery understanding, expertise and experience. Evidence from pilot schemes that have devolved the decision making away from the Home Office shows that the pilots look to have generated impressive results. The processing is speeded up, and any conflict of interest for the Home Office is removed. A multi-agency approach, and the broad knowledge and wisdom that come with it, could improve decision making for victims—certainly those with complex needs.

The key to truly ending these terrible crimes is to lock up the traffickers—a point about which the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), spoke powerfully. We know that the number of victims is increasing, but prosecution rates are shamefully low. Ministry of Justice statistics show that in 2021 there were only 93 prosecutions and 33 convictions in cases in which modern slavery was the principal offence.

Proper support enables modern slavery victims to engage in securing the prosecution of traffickers. Support for victims, including victim navigators, whose incredible work I have had the opportunity to see, is central to successful convictions.

I want to talk about a case study that was shared in The Guardian this week by investigative reporter Annie Kelly. Julia is a Ukrainian survivor of human trafficking and sexual exploitation. She was tricked into coming to the UK under the false promise of legitimate hotel work. For five years, she was controlled by criminal gangs who had seized her passport and forced her to engage in prostitution. She had no control over who she saw or what she was expected to do. Desperate to support her child back in Ukraine and unable to speak English, Julia says she felt trapped by her immigration status and her debt. When she was rescued by the police, she began to build a relationship with a victim navigator, who supported her. Julia, with the victim navigator’s support, worked with the police, and her bravery has resulted in the establishment of an international taskforce, the identification of 120 other female victims and the conviction of five exploiters. Julia is now recovering and rebuilding her life.

Julia’s story and research from charities on the frontline make it clear that consistent support means that victims engage with police investigations. That support needs to come first, to create stability and confidence, and the evidence backs this up. The final evaluation of Justice and Care’s victim navigator pilot scheme found that between September 2018 and June 2022, 92% of survivors who were supported engaged with police, compared with just 44% of survivors without a victim navigator. Twenty exploiters were convicted, 38 prosecutions of accused exploiters were supported and the total sentences for convicted offenders amounted to 178 years and eight months. Between 2018 and 2020, all 62 adult survivors receiving long-term support through one of the Home Office local authority pathways pilot schemes supported a police investigation.

The public are very much ahead of the Government on this; they recognise the connection between supporting victims and bringing offenders to justice. Recent polling for the CSJ and Justice and Care revealed that 82% of the people asked agreed that more Government support for victims of modern slavery is needed to bring more criminal gangs to justice. All of this goes to show that if Government were serious about convicting traffickers, they would be serious about support for victims, but as others have said over the past two days, the Government’s legislation will make it much worse.

The Illegal Migration Bill will have a devastating impact on victims of modern slavery. This is a quote from a letter by the CEOs of organisations that support people through the modern slavery victim care contract:

“Were this bill to come into effect, we fear that many of these survivors would be denied the opportunities to rebuild their lives and reclaim their autonomy.

This bill will do nothing to break cycles of exploitation or help people break free of modern slavery. Instead, it will feed the criminal networks who profit from the lives of vulnerable people. It is essential that genuine victims of modern slavery are afforded the right to seek support.

Furthermore, by closing the route to safety and support, the Illegal Migration Bill risks strengthening the hands of trafficking networks. Traffickers keep people under their control with threats that they will not receive help if they reach out to the authorities. This bill will substantiate this claim and further dissuade survivors from coming forward…Failure to support survivors will result in an undermining of criminal investigations and prosecutions.”

Modern slavery referrals are only a small proportion of overall illegal migration and asylum claims. As the Centre for Social Justice states, only 7% of small boat arrivals since 2018 have been referred to the modern slavery national referral mechanism.

I join the hon. Member for Wellingborough in stressing how disappointed we are that Dame Sara Thornton, who was incredibly effective as the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, left the post in April last year and it has been vacant for nearly a year. That is unacceptable, and I urge the Minister to update the House on why it has not been a priority for this Government and how they intend to correct that.

We agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) that cuckooing is an abhorrent crime. We welcome the Government’s commitment this week to engage with stakeholders on a new offence, but I urge them to move forward as a matter of urgency to protect people who might be subject to such a degree of abuse.

It is right that we try to stop the dangerous crossings—the human cost is so great—but brutal and cruel targeting of vulnerable victims is not the right path, and I hope the Minister has understood that.

03/04/2023